Nobuyuki Asato1, Masakatsu Tsurusaki2,3, Keitaro Sofue4,5, Yoko Hieda6, Takashi Katsube6, Kazuhiro Kitajima7, Takamichi Murakami1. 1. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohnohigashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan. 2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Kindai University, 377-2 Ohnohigashi, Osakasayama, Osaka, 589-8511, Japan. mtsuru@dk2.so-net.ne.jp. 3. Division of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan. mtsuru@dk2.so-net.ne.jp. 4. Division of Diagnostic Radiology, National Cancer Center, Tokyo, Japan. 5. Department of Diagnostic Radiology, Graduate School of Medicine, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan. 6. Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Shimane University, Izumo, Japan. 7. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Hyogo Medical College, Nishinomiya, Japan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) vs. contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in the detection of liver metastasis in colorectal carcinoma patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred fifty-eight consecutive patients with histopathologically confirmed colorectal carcinoma underwent EOB-MRI and CE-CT; 68 patients had 105 surgically confirmed liver metastases. Diagnostic analyses were performed according to sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for liver metastasis detection in combined arterial- and hepatocyte-phase images vs. CE-CT by three readers blinded to clinical data. Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were evaluated using the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic method. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of EOB-MRI (91.4%) was significantly higher than that of CE-CT (80.9%, p < 0.001); the higher sensitivity of EOB-MRI was observed especially in smaller-sized lesions (73.3 vs. 56.0% for lesions ≤1 cm; 91.9 vs. 80.8% for lesions >1 cm and ≤2 cm; 99.2 vs. 95.7% for lesions >2 cm). EOB-MRI showed a significantly greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az value = 0.970) compared with CE-CT (Az value = 0.899, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: EOB-MRI provided higher detectability for liver metastases, especially for smaller-sized lesions, than CE-CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (EOB-MRI) vs. contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) in the detection of liver metastasis in colorectal carcinomapatients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred fifty-eight consecutive patients with histopathologically confirmed colorectal carcinoma underwent EOB-MRI and CE-CT; 68 patients had 105 surgically confirmed liver metastases. Diagnostic analyses were performed according to sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) for liver metastasis detection in combined arterial- and hepatocyte-phase images vs. CE-CT by three readers blinded to clinical data. Diagnostic accuracy and sensitivity were evaluated using the alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic method. RESULTS: The overall sensitivity of EOB-MRI (91.4%) was significantly higher than that of CE-CT (80.9%, p < 0.001); the higher sensitivity of EOB-MRI was observed especially in smaller-sized lesions (73.3 vs. 56.0% for lesions ≤1 cm; 91.9 vs. 80.8% for lesions >1 cm and ≤2 cm; 99.2 vs. 95.7% for lesions >2 cm). EOB-MRI showed a significantly greater area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az value = 0.970) compared with CE-CT (Az value = 0.899, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: EOB-MRI provided higher detectability for liver metastases, especially for smaller-sized lesions, than CE-CT in patients with colorectal carcinoma.
Authors: Chusilp Charnsangavej; Bryan Clary; Yuman Fong; Axel Grothey; Timothy M Pawlik; Michael A Choti Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2006-09-01 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Marcus M von Falkenhausen; Götz Lutterbey; Nuschin Morakkabati-Spitz; Oliver Walter; Jürgen Gieseke; Renate Blömer; Winfried A Willinek; Hans H Schild; Christiane K Kuhl Journal: Radiology Date: 2006-08-14 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Carlo Bartolozzi; Francescamaria Donati; Dania Cioni; Carlo Procacci; Giovanni Morana; Antonio Chiesa; Luigi Grazioli; Giorgio Cittadini; Giuseppe Cittadini; Andrea Giovagnoni; Giovanni Gandini; Jochen Maass; Riccardo Lencioni Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2003-08-09 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hye Jin Kim; Seung Soo Lee; Jae Ho Byun; Jin Cheon Kim; Chang Sik Yu; Seong Ho Park; Ah Young Kim; Hyun Kwon Ha Journal: Radiology Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Kim Sivesgaard; Lars P Larsen; Michael Sørensen; Stine Kramer; Sven Schlander; Nerijus Amanavicius; Arindam Bharadwaz; Dennis Tønner Nielsen; Frank Viborg Mortensen; Erik Morre Pedersen Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-05-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Okker D Bijlstra; Maud M E Boreel; Sietse van Mossel; Mark C Burgmans; Ellen H W Kapiteijn; Daniela E Oprea-Lager; Daphne D D Rietbergen; Floris H P van Velden; Alexander L Vahrmeijer; Rutger-Jan Swijnenburg; J Sven D Mieog; Lioe-Fee de Geus-Oei Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-03-15